Talk:Dieting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Clearly, the human body can easily convert..."

This statement should be better worded, i.e. "It is proven...", or just "The human body..." or anything that doesn't use 'clearly' or 'easily' ('easily' isnt so bad, but 'clearly' must go!) p.s. this is under the Low-Fat Diets section Advs89 22:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Low density diets?

A low density diet is when you try to eat foods that have low calories and big portions. Divide the amount of calories by the grams of food. The resulting number will be between 9-0. The lower the number, the less dense the food is in calories, the better. This way you could get "more bang for the buck" you can eat more food for less calories. Pure carbohydrates will have a number of 4, which includes most cereals. Pure fat have a number 9, the worst. I'd say the best choices would be under the number 3. The thing I like about the diet is it takes serving sizes into account. Think it should be researched and\or included? 24.62.85.110 00:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The Mayo Clinic has developed an energy density food pyramid. The foods with the lowest energy density are low carbohydrate or non-starchy vegetables. The next lowest are fruits. Above the fruits are grains and starchy vegetables. Next comes the protein foods including dairy, legumes and meats. Above the protein foods are the fat foods such as olives, avocados and nuts. At the top of the pyramid are indulgences. Another good idea for at least lunch and dinner is to divide your plate into four portions. On one half or two portions of the plate, place at least a cup of low carbohydrate vegetables. On one quarter or one portion of the plate, place at least a half cup of grains or starchy vegetables. On the remaining quarter or portion, place at least 3 ounces of meat or cheese , preferably fish, poultry or low fat cheese. If legumes are used as a starchy vegetable, the protein portion can be reduced to 2 ounces. Add to this in-between meal snacks of fruit and dairy along with a moderate evening indulgence such as low fat ice cream without added sugar or pudding made with sugar free mix and nonfat milk. I have been following this program for some time and have lost 80 pounds. I have been able to control my Type 2 Diabetes with diet and exercise.Richardalanprice 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Being underweight

Something that often seems to be missing from these type of articles is information about weight gain for those who might be seriously underweight. Of course, those are underweight are a minority, but I think they deserve some information too.

I added alink in the see also section. --Jake 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Potatoes and raw edibility

Potatoes are edible (if not very palitable) raw, but are slightly toxic. A few people do die from eating raw potatoes each year somewhere in the world but this is usually because they have been improperly stored and have started to sprout. It is in the eyes and the sprouting parts that the toxins are concentrated.

The reason that potatoes are excluded from the paleolithic diet is that their non-domesticated ancestors are significantly toxic without cooking and they are therefore neccessarily a post agricultural food. As well as the alkaloid toxins listed here a paleo-proponent might also be concerned about the lectins in potatoes and their possible role in autoimmune disease.

You might also want to look at the Arpad Pusztai affair which involved the toxicity of potatoes. Many argued that the rats were killed merely by the natural toxins in the potatoes rather than the anything present in the potatoes due to genetic modification. -Unknown

NPOV Atkins ad

I'm removing this bit: A ketogenic diet is often very effective in lowering body-fat levels whilst maintaining or even increasing muscle mass. I'm removing it because:

1. all diets that burn fat involve the biological process of ketogenesis, therefore all diets are ketogenic in nature
2. the word "often" is a prejudicial POVism
3. no diet with a calorie deficit can increase muscle mass without exercise, and every diet with calorie deficit will reduce muscle mass unless the dieter also exercises (n.b.: it is possible to keep a calorie deficit and increase muscle mass with exercise)

The sentence is an apparent attempt to promote the diet that uses ketogenesis as a buzz-word, the Atkins diet. Atkins is discussed elsewhere in the article, and its sales pitch doesn't belong in the science section. Also, Atkins doesn't just involve ketogenesis, but ketosis, or chronic ketogenesis. So this deletion will help Wikipedia avoid further muddying the meanings of those terms. Blair P. Houghton 00:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All diets where body fat is lost involve ketosis as well. Not all place the emphasis that Atkins does on ketonuria, testing the urine with test strips to see if the ketosis is severe enough to spill into the urine. But if you are losing adipose weight, your body will be in the fasting state by the end of the long fast known as sleep. Fat will be mobilized from stores to the liver and gluconeogenesis will be occuring there, with ketones liberated to be used as a fuel.--Silverback 14:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

N.B.: When fat is released from lipocytes it comes as fatty acids and glycerol; the fatty acids can go directly to the cells and converted to ATP; the glycerol goes through the liver to be converted to glucose, then to the cells to be converted to ATP. I'll work this in somewhere, eventually, but first, it's time to declare the Atkins diet a fad. USA Today quotes Rachael Ray (rowl) as reporting that the number of low-carb dieters dropped 50% in the first 9 months of 2004, and sales of low-carb products are down 30% in the last 6 months. I'm just going to remove the demurral in the Atkins section. Blair P. Houghton 20:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's your point? Yes fatty acids can also be directly utilized aerobically but, barring execize, within a few hours of a high carb mean, insulin has the body in the substrate storing "fed" state. When in the fasting state, the energy that the liver uses for gluconeogenes is is supplied by fatty acids in the liver, to use glucose would be a futile cycle. Atkins is just around in a different form, marketed a little better and called "South Beach". I didn't put the fad stuff in the article, it is not a precise term anyway. --Silverback 22:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizing; just throwing in a detail about the liver's involvement. I guess assumed the fatty acids and glucose are being consumed by some sort of activity so you're not in a "futile cycle". One thing I might put in the article: "The only way to lose fat is to convert it to fuel and burn it". But then everyone would say oh yeah, well what about liposuction... On the other matter, the USA Today piece didn't make a distinction, it just said low-carb dieting is falling off rapidly, so I cut the "Atkins is not a fad" thing. It's all good. Blair P. Houghton 22:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Motivation

I think there should be something about the mental factors at work here. People often overeat because of low self-esteem for example. Dieting therefore has to look at how you tackle that. Andrew

Maybe a new section on Motivation? Could get kind of out of hand, though. Might do better as a subsection in the psychology portions of the obesity page. Could also be added piecemeal to those techniques subsections here that have motivational components, because many of the diets leave motivational tools (beyond buying into the premise of the snake oil) out. --Blair P. Houghton 21:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chitter Chatter

What makes potato inedible raw?

I don't make a habit of it, but I do eat bits of them raw while I'm chopping them. -- Zoe

The classic demonstration of the contribution of smell to taste is to eat a raw apple and a raw potato while holding the nose and to not be able to tell the difference. Ortolan88

According to the data at [1], raw potatoes, even with solanine and chaconine, don't seem too dangerous. Juan M. Gonzalez 19:44 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

I don't think you'd want to eat very much raw potato at a sitting. I wasn't implying it was poisonous (although the green parts of a potato plant are no good for you, I seem to recall). zadcat 19:52 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

They are difficult to digest because of protease inhibitors, which interfere with the digestion of protein. Eating raw potatoes in significant quantity will give you gas for this reason. --Silverback 08:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could be something about the starches being harder to digest. I'm on a seafood diet myself ... ;-) --Tarquin 01:09 Aug 30, 2002 (PDT)

Paleolithic diet

You're only allowed to eat what you can forage or hunt down and kill with an atlatl? --Brion

There is info at http://www.paleodiet.com --Juan M. Gonzalez 19:07 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

As I understand it, the theory is that our digestive systems evolved before we had grains and beans to eat, so the healthiest things for us are meat, fish, fruit, nuts and whatever vegetables don't have to be cooked. (You don't have to eat them raw, but they have to be edible raw - unlike, say, a potato.) There are finer points. I'll do a page soon. zadcat 19:24 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

A general Wikipedia cultural point, about this kind of subject

This is such a broad and controversial area that it is better to let the material suffer from "over diversity of opinion" than to try to put a "final authority" boil-down into place. The various approaches should be allowed to stand as long as they pass the smell test of serious investigation, or clinical research.Nativeborncal 06:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Quality of Article

This article seems to suffer from being vague and repetitive. The daily protein intake of 1 gram per pound of body weight is wrong or at least outdated: an average man needs about 80 grams of fat, more like 1 gram per kilo. The science and fad parts need to be better separated. It is true and sad that there is very little good info on metabolism and physical work in this area. What about hot and cold weather (on energy expenditure).Anthony717 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of dieting

User 24.116.16.155 made a large edit that says that dieting is only for losing weight, which isn't true. This article does not have to be restricted to just weight loss. A more inclusive article would lead to a better Wikipedia. -- Mjwilco 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the purpose doesn't seem to be clear. The current article goes to great lengths to suggest that dieting is a short-term process distinct from the generic concept of a diet as a descriptor of what a person consumes. In the next paragraph, the article immediately contradicts that and gives examples like sodium-free, bland, and similar diets. One way or another a consensus should be reached on what this article covers so that it can be consistent and other purposes can find their own aritcles. Robb0995 21:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"What dieting is not" is poorly written

This needs a re-write. It begins by saying that Dieting "for the purposes of this article" must involve weight-loss. This makes sense. But it then immediately INCLUDES diets for "religious purposes, psychological motives and athletic prowess." It EXCLUDES anorexia or bulimia and then goes into strange language about young men and laudable diets. Someone please rewrite this concisely or delete chapter.

Diet (nutrition)?

To me, this article seems like it's just covering the same stuff as dieting, does it really warrant a separate article? I think it could be included here, redirecting both that and the disambig 'diet' page here too... Tyciol 04:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

One must burn 14,500 kilojoules (3,500 Calories) more than one consumes to lose one pound (0.45 kilograms) or burn 37,000 kilojoules (9000 Calories) more than one consumes to lose one kilogram.

This values seem to come from the naive calculation of 1 kg excess body weight = 1 kg fat = 9000 calories. --Abdull 11:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good rule of thumb. The human body stores excess food energy as fat (9000 calories per kilogram), so assuming that you're trying to lose fat and not muscle, you need to burn off 9000 calories to lose that weight.

In actuality, that kilogram of fat cells you're trying to get rid of includes lower-density support structures (proteins at 4000 calories per kilogram), water (zero calories), and a certain amount of non-fat-cell mass (blood vessels, connective tissue, extra skin), but the actual value is somewhere in the 8000-9000 calorie range. --Serie 00:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If the first part of the sentence is correct, the second can't be (3500/0.45 = 7700) and literature always showed 7700 kilocalories per 1 kg of body fat. So, the 9000 has to became 7700 and "calories" should become "kilocalories". --Juliascotti 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fat is stored in adipose tissue. A calorie deficit causes fat to be burned, not adipose cells, which simply shrink as fat is burned.

Physical exercise (with an example)

I really don't know biology, but this sentence seems to me wrong: ...that he is 20 percent efficient at converting chemical energy into mechanical work (this is within measured ranges). The 20 percent efficiency is really a big number, also for mechanical machines. I'll expect a much smaller value. It seems to me that body produce a lot more heat and there are some indirect chemical reaction to trasform fat into mechanical energy. I cannot believe in such number. Someone can confirm the 20 percent? (I'll expect efficiency < 0.5-1%). Cate 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Author response: I added the example last year, and I checked my units and math carefully. "Delta efficiency" (defined work done per overall energy expended, at a time) of humans is firmly in the range of 15 to 25 percent: see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6770/full/403614a0.html and others. Using a stationary bike or a stair climbing machine (especially revolving stairs) and a machine that measures CO2 exhalation or net O2 intake, this efficiency can be calculated with great precision. One percent would be impossible: we'd have to eat constantly just to stay alive. All calculations were done using SI: kilograms to newtons at 9.8ms-2, newton-meters to joules, joules times unit delta efficiency, joules to kilojoules, kilojoules expended versus kilojoules of average diet comparison, et cetera. I do concede the points below, except that I would counter that these lesser effects are very difficult to measure (since we can't keep people constantly hooked up to gas analyzers). Moreover, it is better to be conservative so that a person can understand exactly the amounts of food intake and exercise that will guarantee a certain weigh lossAnthony717 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've some other objections against reductive extimation of the role of physical exercise in diet: 1) physical exercise brings an increase of basal metabolism (in the other 24 hours of the day - the hours of workout), because recovering the depleted body (microtraumas in muscles, depleted glicogen reserves etc) after the workout IS a seizeable work in matter of calories so people that does exercise on a regular basis spend quite more calories when resting than sedentary people;

2) many kinds of workout bring a better physical frame, that means more muscle, and the muscle is the tissue that burn more calories (also when resting), so we have a second reason why often the basal metabolism of tuned people is higher than of sedentary people, bringing an increased calory consumption over the 24 hours;

3) reducing calory intake without increasing work demand to muscles is a foul thing to do since evolution efficiently protect us from starving, that is more a real risk in wild nature than obesity, burning the muscle tissue (in order to reduce metabolism) as first response to reduced calory intake, long before starting to use fat that is, in nature, the very last resort. In other words, if we think to limit the calory intake we need also to give the body an anabolic input (with exercise) in order to counterbalence it's naturasl reaction: adapt the consumption to the reduced intake, burning the tissues (muscles first) that bring greater calory consumption.

But there are also less direct effect of exercise that are very important in diet:

4) regular exercise often reduce retention of liquids in tissues, often bringing to seizable weight loss in very first weeks that is due simply to a better balance of water in the body;

5) during workout the body release endorphins and other substances with a strong inpact on the mood of the pherson that may strongly help in balancing psychic discomfort situations that may bring to an high and unmoderated desire for food.

Giorgio.tani

Removal of Atkins 'advertising'

A whole chunk of '[NOTES]' added by Timbrewolf1 have been removed and the article reverted. Timbrewolf1 - if you want to advertise Atkins Wikipedia is not the place to do it.

Scientific analysis of the dangers of fasting (and discussion of partial fasting with protein supplementation)

According to the article:

"After experimentation, it was found that a protein intake of 1 to 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of ideal bodyweight (lean body mass or LBM) prevented the loss of body protein. A somewhat "safer" intake of .8 to 1.2 grams of protein per pound of LBM is often recommended. (More active persons and those taking less protein must compensate by consuming at least some carbohydrates.)"

2 things need to be resolved: (1) (measurements) It says grams/kg in the first sentence and grams/lb in the second sentence. They should both be the same unit (kilograms I am assuming). (2) (clarification) Is the intake of protein a daily intake figure? (I assume it is)

1)No, they are not supposed to be in the same unit. The original research was done based on kgs of ideal body mass. The safer index comes from Lyle McDonald's research on the subject and is in g/lb since that is most useful to people. You'll notice that the g/lb figure is larger when converted to kg's. This is why it's "safer."

When I read this, I thought the "safer" intake was below the former. The difference should be made more explicit, besides I'm curious why you would assume g/lb would be the more useful unit. Rakshasa 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

2) Fixed

Metric vs. Imperial systems

While this isn't a big issue, could we possibly work on incorporating more detailed imperial conversions for users not familiar with the metric system? I think the article already does a fair job of this, but not all of the article's discussions of measurement include direct imperial conversions, and some users may find this confusing -- especially when they're skimming through the article only to read one particular section. Grendel 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Slow weight loss

I’ve read vague statements that the more slowly one loses weight the more likely it is to stay off. While I firmly believe this, I’ve never heard of any studies that have shown this. If there are studies that show this, I think they need to get a lot more publicity. My belief, based on hunch and personal experience, is that loss of a pound a week is a little too fast.

The book “French Women Don’t Get Fat,” by Mireille Guiliano, was a best-seller in 2005, but I don’t think it got as much attention as it should get. There’s no mention of that book, of French eating habits, or the much lower rates of overweight in France in this article or in the article “List of diets.” My reaction to all the crazy diets I see here and elsewhere is that I wonder why we continue to discuss the weight problem when the answer has been found: Make a series of small changes that you intend to be permanent, plan on losing weight slowly and eating the same after you lose the weight as during, don’t use any scientific terminology or count or weigh or measure anything, eat small portions of a balanced diet, and be sure you enjoy your food. -- Anne, 9 July 2006

It is so good to know "that the answer has been found" as to the 'secret' of weight loss - lose it slowly. Well, as an obese person struggling throughout my life to lose weight, I'll tell you why your reasoning fails: hunger. There is no short-cut to weight loss; it is simple: burn more calories than you consume. The problem is that when you consume less calories than your body needs to maintain its current weight, it signals that it is hungry. The ability to sustain hunger on an on-going basis is usually referred to as 'will power', i.e., do you have the willpower to lose weight? If not, you are considered weak and not worth the effort expended by doctors, dieticions, etc who go through all the trouble of developing wieght-loss diets that 'work' (according to the 'professionals'). The reason people look to quick-loss diets is that they know that over time, hunger will kill whatever 'will power' they are able to muster. So, again, thanks for recommending the one sure diet, the real secret, which in reality does not work - just as 98% of all wieght-loss diets do not work for one simple reason. People cannot go hungry for weeks, months, years at a time - the time that is needed to lose weight according to almost every diet plan out there. 71.214.66.217 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Elimination

"if not all, "fad diets." There is a (sometimes confusing) multitude of weight loss techniques, many of which are ineffective"

Eliminated the above sentence from the article as it expresses an opinion about diets as being ineffective.

jobe457 13:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Atkins "gorging" on meat

Without wanting to spark a heated debate on the merits of the Atkins diet, it is simply untrue to suggest Dr Robert Atkins recommends "gorging on meat". In The New Atkins Diet Revolution, he specifically cautions against overeating on meat, pointing out that the diet will not be effective for those eating in excess. I also find the word "gorging" breaches the NPOV rule, "significant quantities" or "higher quantities" would be more accurate and objective, so I am removing it. (Istara 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

Low fat dieting

The section on Low Fat Dieting starts authoritatively, then meanders into an entirely uncited series of observations on 'the uncooked diet'.

"For example, the uncooked diet tends to improve a participant's health. People's weight tends to nomalize due to the lack of fat in the diet. It also gives people a high amount of energy as uncooked food is easily matabolized. The diet makes you hungry because the food is easily digested, which constantly makes room for more. However, most people never put on weight while on this diet due to the low fat content. Besides, people should not mix cooked food with uncooked food while on this diet. The cooked food causes the stomach to produce acid, which does not mix well with the uncooked food and can create indigestion."

This may all be accurate, but it's written by a convert, is not NPOV, and is written in alternate persons.

Physical exercise (with an example)

I really don't know biology, but this sentence seems to me wrong: ...that he is 20 percent efficient at converting chemical energy into mechanical work (this is within measured ranges). The 20 percent efficiency is really a big number, also for mechanical machines. I'll expect a much smaller value. It seems to me that body produce a lot more heat and there are some indirect chemical reaction to trasform fat into mechanical energy. I cannot believe in such number. Someone can confirm the 20 percent? (I'll expect efficiency < 0.5-1%). Cate 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Author response: I added the example last year, and I checked my units and math carefully. "Delta efficiency" (defined work done per overall energy expended, at a time) of humans is firmly in the range of 15 to 25 percent: see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6770/full/403614a0.html and others. Using a stationary bike or a stair climbing machine (especially revolving stairs) and a machine that measures CO2 exhalation or net O2 intake, this efficiency can be calculated with great precision. One percent would be impossible: we'd have to eat constantly just to stay alive. All calculations were done using SI: kilograms to newtons at 9.8ms-2, newton-meters to joules, joules times unit delta efficiency, joules to kilojoules, kilojoules expended versus kilojoules of average diet comparison, et cetera. I do concede the points below, except that I would counter that these lesser effects are very difficult to measure (since we can't keep people constantly hooked up to gas analyzers). Moreover, it is better to be conservative so that a person can understand exactly the amounts of food intake and exercise that will guarantee a certain weigh lossAnthony717 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've some other objections against reductive extimation of the role of physical exercise in diet: 1) physical exercise brings an increase of basal metabolism (in the other 24 hours of the day - the hours of workout), because recovering the depleted body (microtraumas in muscles, depleted glicogen reserves etc) after the workout IS a seizeable work in matter of calories so people that does exercise on a regular basis spend quite more calories when resting than sedentary people;

2) many kinds of workout bring a better physical frame, that means more muscle, and the muscle is the tissue that burn more calories (also when resting), so we have a second reason why often the basal metabolism of tuned people is higher than of sedentary people, bringing an increased calory consumption over the 24 hours;

3) reducing calory intake without increasing work demand to muscles is a foul thing to do since evolution efficiently protect us from starving, that is more a real risk in wild nature than obesity, burning the muscle tissue (in order to reduce metabolism) as first response to reduced calory intake, long before starting to use fat that is, in nature, the very last resort. In other words, if we think to limit the calory intake we need also to give the body an anabolic input (with exercise) in order to counterbalence it's naturasl reaction: adapt the consumption to the reduced intake, burning the tissues (muscles first) that bring greater calory consumption.

But there are also less direct effect of exercise that are very important in diet:

4) regular exercise often reduce retention of liquids in tissues, often bringing to seizable weight loss in very first weeks that is due simply to a better balance of water in the body;

5) during workout the body release endorphins and other substances with a strong inpact on the mood of the pherson that may strongly help in balancing psychic discomfort situations that may bring to an high and unmoderated desire for food.

Giorgio.tani

Removal of Atkins 'advertising'

A whole chunk of '[NOTES]' added by Timbrewolf1 have been removed and the article reverted. Timbrewolf1 - if you want to advertise Atkins Wikipedia is not the place to do it.

Scientific analysis of the dangers of fasting (and discussion of partial fasting with protein supplementation)

According to the article:

"After experimentation, it was found that a protein intake of 1 to 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of ideal bodyweight (lean body mass or LBM) prevented the loss of body protein. A somewhat "safer" intake of .8 to 1.2 grams of protein per pound of LBM is often recommended. (More active persons and those taking less protein must compensate by consuming at least some carbohydrates.)"

2 things need to be resolved: (1) (measurements) It says grams/kg in the first sentence and grams/lb in the second sentence. They should both be the same unit (kilograms I am assuming). (2) (clarification) Is the intake of protein a daily intake figure? (I assume it is)

1)No, they are not supposed to be in the same unit. The original research was done based on kgs of ideal body mass. The safer index comes from Lyle McDonald's research on the subject and is in g/lb since that is most useful to people. You'll notice that the g/lb figure is larger when converted to kg's. This is why it's "safer."

When I read this, I thought the "safer" intake was below the former. The difference should be made more explicit, besides I'm curious why you would assume g/lb would be the more useful unit. Rakshasa 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

2) Fixed

Metric vs. Imperial systems

While this isn't a big issue, could we possibly work on incorporating more detailed imperial conversions for users not familiar with the metric system? I think the article already does a fair job of this, but not all of the article's discussions of measurement include direct imperial conversions, and some users may find this confusing -- especially when they're skimming through the article only to read one particular section. Grendel 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Slow weight loss

I’ve read vague statements that the more slowly one loses weight the more likely it is to stay off. While I firmly believe this, I’ve never heard of any studies that have shown this. If there are studies that show this, I think they need to get a lot more publicity. My belief, based on hunch and personal experience, is that loss of a pound a week is a little too fast.

The book “French Women Don’t Get Fat,” by Mireille Guiliano, was a best-seller in 2005, but I don’t think it got as much attention as it should get. There’s no mention of that book, of French eating habits, or the much lower rates of overweight in France in this article or in the article “List of diets.” My reaction to all the crazy diets I see here and elsewhere is that I wonder why we continue to discuss the weight problem when the answer has been found: Make a series of small changes that you intend to be permanent, plan on losing weight slowly and eating the same after you lose the weight as during, don’t use any scientific terminology or count or weigh or measure anything, eat small portions of a balanced diet, and be sure you enjoy your food. -- Anne, 9 July 2006

It is so good to know "that the answer has been found" as to the 'secret' of weight loss - lose it slowly. Well, as an obese person struggling throughout my life to lose weight, I'll tell you why your reasoning fails: hunger. There is no short-cut to weight loss; it is simple: burn more calories than you consume. The problem is that when you consume less calories than your body needs to maintain its current weight, it signals that it is hungry. The ability to sustain hunger on an on-going basis is usually referred to as 'will power', i.e., do you have the willpower to lose weight? If not, you are considered weak and not worth the effort expended by doctors, dieticions, etc who go through all the trouble of developing wieght-loss diets that 'work' (according to the 'professionals'). The reason people look to quick-loss diets is that they know that over time, hunger will kill whatever 'will power' they are able to muster. So, again, thanks for recommending the one sure diet, the real secret, which in reality does not work - just as 98% of all wieght-loss diets do not work for one simple reason. People cannot go hungry for weeks, months, years at a time - the time that is needed to lose weight according to almost every diet plan out there. 71.214.66.217 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Diet Pills

Typically these drugs fall into two classes: diuretics to induce water-weight loss and stimulants (such as ephedrine, and more recently synephrine, due to the former's ban as a weight loss supplement by the FDA, although ephedrine is still available as an asthma medication) to increase heart rate and reduce appetite. Both classes of drugs can cause kidney and liver damage, and stimulants can cause sudden heart attacks, addiction, and both ephedrine and synephrine have been proven to cause ischemic stroke.

This section reads highly POV, no citations and is prima facie rubbish. The use of stimulants to lose weight is a common technique carried out by millions of people worldwide daily with little to no side effects. The odd instance where someone who is already in very poor health has a stroke or heart attack from it is not above standard deviation, IMHO. Perhaps we can get some citations on this portion of the article, specifically citations that show that it's higher than the standard acceptable deviation applied to the specific chemicals expected level of side effects? Jachin 21:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'd add that the two classes are not diuretics and stimulants, but drugs that limit energy intake (oralist, appetite suppressants) and drugs that increase energy expenditure (thermogenics, stimulants). Many drugs do both, such as ephedrine/caffeine (suppresses appetite, increases energy, mild thermogenic).

A problem with the exercise section, and rapid weight loss in general

The section on physical exercise tends to downplay the role of exercise in its ability to create *rapid* weight loss. I certainly agree with that. However, I think if we are going to give an extended calculation showing how insignificant a short workout session can be in generating a weight loss of 10 kg, I think we also need to show the equivalent calculation for how small acts of physical activity each day can not only promote general fitness, but over time make the difference in weight management.

For example, using the same basic assumptions as the example quoted in this section, it is easily verified that climbing about 3 flights of stairs every day (a behavior pattern that many people could easily incorporate into their daily routine) will result in a net weight loss of about 1 pound per year. This is true for a number of small things like this. Walking a mile every day (which can also be incorporated bits at a time throughout a daily routine) will lead to a weight loss of about 10 pounds/year.

This is obviously not what people are looking for -- they want to lose 10 kg in a 2-3 weeks. HOWEVER, I just think it should be noted somewhere that most people don't gain 10 kg in 2-3 weeks; they gain it over 2-3 *years*, but then they expect to be able to lose it in 2-3 weeks. The point that needs to be made in the exercise section about this is that small amount of activity every day can be enough to prevent someone from gaining the 10 kg over the 2-3 years in the first place. And, making these small changes in daily routines can also promote small amounts of weight loss in the long run. The same, of course, goes for small calorie reductions that are done consistently (e.g., cutting out 100 calories per day -- one or two cookies -- can result in a loss of 10 pounds over a year, assuming that the person is already consuming just enough calories to maintain weight, and the converse is true -- adding one or two cookies per day can make the difference in adding on pounds slowly).

In summary, I have two overall problems with this article: (1) the exercise section, with its current example, tends to come across as discouraging to people who might otherwise incorporate some level of exercise (even a small amount) in their diet routine (which is bad -- people should incorporate exercise), and (2) there should be a clearer section discussing the fact that we don't gain weight anywhere near as fast as we want to lose it, and paying attention to little details can make the difference in putting on weight slowly versus taking it off slowly. This latter viewpoint is much more healthy (puts less stress on the body, promotes changes in habits that are more likely to stick that rapid fad diets, etc.) and should be stressed more than most of the "diets" mentioned on this page. 76.118.181.158 18:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, make the changes, but make sure you have reliable sources and avoid original research. You can add unsourced material, but if anyone challenges it, it will be removed. WLU 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be very interested in what sources you come up with to indicate that your approach actually works, given that what you are suggesting has pretty much been the position of the medical establishment for many years - lose weight slowly, 1 to 2 pounds per week. The problem with this approach is that it simply does not work. The National Institute of Health states that this approach fails 95% to 98% of the time. The reason is that in order to lose weight, one must consume less calories than your body needs. Unfortunately, this causes hunger. People are able to handle hunger over a period of time, but when they have to endure hunger for months or even years, most simply cannot sustain that ability. Overweight individuals know this, that is why they look for ways to lose weight quickly, before they lose their ability to deal with constant hunger. I do agree with your statements regarding exercise, which I do feel is the key. 206.169.172.212 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Those figures, from what I know, cover essentially all diets irrespective of approach except for gradual weight loss. The NIH page on yo-yo dieting supports the gradual weight loss approach, and discourages rapid weight loss. The page on losing weight supports a calorie deficit of 500-1000 calories, based on a mix of food restriction and increased exercise. Though realistically, burning 1000 calories a day through exercise would probably run a significant risk of overtraining. WLU 15:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If the proposed ideas concerning small amounts of exercise burning calories are "original research," then the whole section on physical exercise needs to be rewritten. The assumptions in that section do a basic calculation that ignores changes in metabolism, etc. for the duration of the weight-loss regime (a matter of months). If those assumptions are correct, then similar calculations do show that doing small things should result in weight loss (or at least maintaining current weight). So, I'd vote for including some discussion of the role of small amounts of exercise and similar calculations for long-term weight maintenance... it's isn't "original research" -- it's basic math (just the same as the current "physical exercise" section has).

Regarding the claim that dieters say hunger overwhelms them and thus diets need to be short... well, I'd say if that's true, perhaps your diet it too extreme. I know that some people have problems with metabolism caused by various disorders and so forth, but if all of that is working properly, gradual weight loss just doesn't seem that taxing. Although this is anecdotal evidence, I'll say that I personally lost about 30 pounds with a daily calorie deficit of about 500 calories... which means that the diet lasted about 30 weeks. Yes, it was hard for the first couple weeks, but after about 3 weeks, my body got used to a gradual weight loss. The key for me was simply weighing myself daily and averaging the weights over the past week to see how my weight was trending. As long as it kept going down about a pound per week, I kept eating as I was. If it was going down slower, I ate a little less... if it was going down faster, I ate a little more. Occasionally I'd get hungry, but I don't think it was a lot more often than I would get hungry even if I wasn't dieting (you know, sometimes you're just not at a convenient point in the day, so you can't eat for a while).

I know this is all anecdotal, but I just needed to respond to the person that essentially argued that fast diets are the only way because hunger will overpower you. Yes, hunger will overpower you if you're trying to lose 5 pounds per week (next to impossible, and very unhealthy), but if you're simply eating a little less than you need, the hunger is manageable... even for months. And, with that in mind, I think there is a lot of wisdom in the argument that doing a little extra each day (taking the stairs, walking a little extra, etc.) will help keep weight off and may help you lose it. 65.96.106.31 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not stating that rapid weight lose diets are the way to go. What I am saying is that the majority of overweight individuals cannot cope with the on-going hunger associated with long-term dieting. Your personal success is great, but how does that relate to the rest of the population? Have you ever considered that hunger is experienced differently by different people? I once had a co-worker who never needed any pain medication when at the dentist because he did not feel pain - can you imagine having your tooth drilled without anesthesia? Perhaps many individuals trying to lose weight simply cannot deal with hunger the way you do. The very fact that, in general, overweight people have a difficult time losing weight must indicate that it is hard to do so successfully. I did not know how to create a link in Wikipedia to a specific source, but you will find the following statement in eMedicine.com (there is a link to the general eMedicine obesity article at the top of the Wikipedia article on obesity) under Treatment:

"Results of weight-loss management:

o Results of most weight loss management programs are dismal. On average, participants in the best weight-loss programs lose approximately 10% of their body weight, but people generally regain two thirds of the weight lost within a year, and they regain almost all of it within 5 years.

o When defined as sustained weight loss over a 5-year follow-up period, the success of even the best medical weight-loss programs is next to nil. Most available data indicate that, irrespective of the method of medical intervention, 90-95% of the weight lost is regained in 5 years."

206.169.172.212 19:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I request a move to the main Diet page, alternatively a redirect may be created preliminary. See the diet (nutrition) talk page for more information. KVDP (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Text in article is, err, odd

To quote: Physical exercise is an important complement to dieting in securing weight loss. Aerobic exercise is also an important part of maintaining normal good health, especially the muscular strength of the heart. To be useful, aerobic exercise requires maintaining a target heart rate of above 50 percent of one's maximum heart rate for 30 minutes, at least 3 times a week. Brisk walking can accomplish this.

"above one's maximum heart rate"??? Shouldn't this be a different measure, such as sitting heart rate or some such? Maximum is maximum and if you told me that I had to go 30 minutes at near 300 BPM I'd never take you seriously (my max is 195). - mec 13 August 2007

New comments should go at the bottom of the page. You might mean resting heart rate - feel free to adjust. WLU 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding. "...a target heart rate of above 50% of one's maximum heart rate..." does not mean (to me at least) "a target rate of 50% above one's maximum". If your maximum heart rate is 200, then the first phrase would mean you would need an exercise pulse of at least 100. The second phrase would mean a pulse of 300. Boxter1977 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "pmid17636786" :
  • {{cite journal |author=Thomas D, Elliott E, Baur L |title=Low glycaemic index or low glycaemic load diets for overweight and obesity |journal= |volume=3 |issue= |pages=CD005105 |year=2007 |pmid=17636786 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD005105.pub2}}
  • {{cite journal |author=Thomas DE, Elliott E, Baur L |title=Low glycaemic index or low glycaemic load diets for overweight and obesity |journal=Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) |volume= |issue=3 |pages=CD005105 |year=2007 |pmid=17636786 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD005105.pub2}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Impact of Meal Frequency --

A contributor to this article has provided information about the "single meal" approach to caloric/nutrient intake as being best for optimal health and ideal weight. Could this contributor please give us some references for the "studies have proven" and "Scientists have found" statements in second paragraph of the Meal Frequency section? ---- InfoInsatiate 21 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoInsatiate (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The Hacker's Diet

What about The Hacker's Diet? Do you think it's worth mentioning here? The e-book linked from that page ([2]) claims that dieting is all about conservation of energy and feedback.
The energy density of fat is about 3500 calories per pound (= about 7000 calories per kilogram) so "If, over a period of time, the calories in the food you eat exceed the calories you burn by 3500, you'll put on about a pound. Conversely, if you reduce your food intake so that you burn 3500 calories more than you eat, you'll lose about a pound."
Author of the book also explains that some people are thin without effort and others are not because of their bodies provide different kind of feedback between their actual need for calories and their appetite for food.
Moreover, the book makes following points:

• The only thing that needs to be consciously considered when planning meals is their caloric content. Most people can take care of proper nutritioning subconsciously. If one happens to not to be in this group, they may resort to pre-prepared frozen meals.
• Hunger is necessary when losing weigth, but after achieving the desired weigth, one may return to their former eating habits.
• Regular conscious control over one's weight is needed for the rest of one's life, to make up for the lack of natural feedback (however, author of the book states that's only about 30 seconds at a time, even without using a computer)
• Excercise is neither needed nor even helpful in losing weight, although it has huge benefits on its own, and can prevent muscle tissue loss during weight loss.

Well, for me it makes perfect sense. 94.101.16.21 (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I'm used to thinking in metric units, sorry for the mistake.

This sounds just like any other standard diet plan - reduce your calories to meet your energy use. The same program that fails 95% of the time per NIH. I also see that hunger is dismissed as apparently no big deal when if fact hunger is the real reason diets typically fail over time. Most individuals are unable to deal with constant hunger for the period of time needed to lose the amount of weight needed to meet their goal. 71.38.147.184 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC).

The discussion about weight loss should be concentrated on fat loss. Weight loss or fat loss

Deletion proposal

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit for Life. Badagnani (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue with definition of Dieting

"Dieting is the practice of ingesting food in a regulated fashion to achieve or maintain a controlled weight" is an erroneous definition. Dieting, very often, refers to controlled/regulated ingestion of food for different health reasons other than maintaining/controlling weight. For example, diabetic patients follow low-calorie diet, patients with hypertension follow diet with low sodium intake, high blood urea calls for low-protein diet, etc. Subh83 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I see this will need a whole lot of change in the complete article. The article is focused only towards dieting w.r.t. weight loss. Is there any other generic article on dieting that covers the other aspects of dieting as well? Subh83 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Healthy diet Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Table for Advice on Choosing a Food DIary to Use

I've just attempted to start a table listing a website that can keep a user's food diary, but it has been removed.

I can understand that think could be deemed to be "advert linkspam," but I also think that this would be useful content for the reader.

The new table was intended to initiate a comparison between this website and other websites/applications.

Please feedback any thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.63.183 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't exist for the purpose of promoting other sites. The article already links to http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Weight_Loss/ - which is much better suited to host link directories. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Move to Weight control diet

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Weight loos appears to be what is commonly meant when this title is used. I have, however, added a hatnote.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Dieting → Weight control diet — The current article name dieting does not sufficiently distinguish itself from Diet (nutrition). Also, this article deals specifically with diets to lower body weight, but there are other types of diets too, such as low sodium diet to lower blood pressure. I propose moving to weight control diet (or perhaps weight loss diet, but it doesn't include keeping a desired body weight, which also seems to be the scope here). Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Someone looking for information about a weight control diet is by far the most likely to look under "dieting". The word "diet" when used as a verb, i.e. "dieting," is commonly understood as attempting to lose weight. When a person makes changes in his diet for other reasons, such as for a medical condition, he does not say he is "dieting". --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the common name. Why would you propose a name which you need to add "but it doesn't include ... which also seems to be the scope here"? 199.125.109.88 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the ambiguity suggested doesn't really exist in common usage. Knepflerle (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

muscle tissue and BMR

Muscle tissue expends more energy than fat tissue, but the difference is insignificant (I think it's 6kcal/lb/day versus 2kcal/lb/day). They both increase energy needs (this article states only muscle does).

BMR isn't a direct indicator of weight loss as suggested in this article. Even sedentary individuals need to add 20% for basic activities. See Wikipedia's article on energy balance.

Also, 3500kcal deficit per pound of weight loss isn't accurate. Muscle can sometimes be 50% of weight loss and it releases much less energy per pound than fat (therefore more weight lost on a similar deficit). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.50.137 (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

General Consensus?

I understand this may fly in the face of what the majority of people working on this site attempt to accomplish, but does nobody else feel that a "general (current scientific) consensus" section describing the majority of experts' views on the subject would be helpful? I doubt that most people are looking up dieting just to find out what it is. They're looking for unbiased information not being sold to them in a book or movie series with a meal plan. I don't think it could be considered giving dangerous medical advice to, for instance, state (i don't know if this is true or not) that there is widespread scientific consensus that a light diet consisting primarily of leafy vegetables and small portions of meat, starch, and fat is good for health. And possibly have a statement lead into a sort of suggested diet (this doesn't have to be so overt that anyone could be accused of telling someone the right "answer" to the question.) I think it's really silly and uninformative to have a page that's essentially just a list of possible ways to misguide oneself, without any real attempt at discussing whether the atlatl-hunted diet is any more benificial than the Slim-Fast one. 70.108.199.130 06:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

70.108.199.130, I would agree. However this should be presented as from an authoritative source, e.g. government guidelines or scientific research. I intend to make a start on cleaning this page up in the near future but I am not an expert on the subject matter. -- Jamougha

1. Currently, there's no scientific consensus 2. "I doubt that most people are looking up dieting just to find out what it is." This is exactly what wikipedia is supposed to be - a source of basic information. No wikipedia article should be giving medical or dieting advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.63.32 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

While on the surface the idea of saying that "a light diet consisting primarily of leafy vegetables and small portions of meat, starch, and fat is good for health," seems perfectly uncontroversial, it's not that simple. Some research suggests that low-fat diets (small portions of fat) actually cause people to get fatter because they end up eating more carbs and often it's refined carbohydrates. The above-mentioned diet suggestion also does not specify how much people should eat. Nor does it specify what kind of meat - some researchers say that red meat is very bad, while others do not. So, it's not simple! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, part of the reason diets fail is there an expectation on the dieter to have to compete with others. Society doesn't make it easy on them and there is often not enough of support, especially from family and friends. The models that work best tend to be the ones that offer group support followed by consistent support even after the dieter has met their goals. A lot of diets work, but falling off the wagon and gaining all the weigh back is very common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos6466 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Calorie Myth

It has been proven through many studies (such as The Glycemic Index) that weight gain does not occur from eating too many calories, but by eating the WRONG foods! Since 1960 Americans have consumed 35% less calories, and yet obesiety has risen by a huge 400%! (statistic from Adrian F. Heini “Divergent trends in obesity and fat intake patterns : The American Paradox”. The American Journal of Medicine 1997.) What then, if not calories, causes weight gain? Hyperinsulinisme (or high blood sugar levels) is the key. Whever you eat somethign with a high sugar level (such as white bread, or cooked potatoes) the carbohydrates are broken down into glucose, and it spikes the bodies blood sugar level, which then cause the body to secrete insulin, which reduces the blood sugar levels. It does this by storing the glucose into its reserves. But once these reserves get full... then trouble comes a knocking. The excess glucose is turned into body fat instead. How would you then know which foods are good (or have low glycemic index (GI) levels), and which are bad? After many studies with different foods, humans have discovered the GI levels of different foods. For more information please visit the Official web site of Michel Montignac and the Montignac Method

The above post is WRONG. The wrong foods? There are so many people that are killing themselves slowly, like this. They are the same ones that think cholesterol is a myth. As mentioned right below, calories account for weight gain/loss. To many calories, weight gain. Want to lose weight, eat less calories. The human body is an engine. Remember "The Matrix?" I've found that many over-estimate the amount of calories they are eating! A calorie counter, such as one by Coheso CalorieSmart, is an easy way to accurately calculate the amount of calories one is consuming. As researched and documented by Dean Ornish, MD when one changes from a poor diet, usually of refine foods, fats, and sugars to other foods that don't include the refined ones, you'll lose weight because those food encourage one to over eat, become sluggish and tired, and stop exercising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos6466 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's remarkable how when the potential to sell books or diet products is present, the laws of physics cease to apply. Even though human beings produce heat (and require a basic metabolic rate of no less than 1300 calories - HEAT ENERGY UNITS - per day....absolute worst case), people are willing to buy that somehow you can defy the laws of thermodynamics by eating "bad calories". It just amazes me. Do I doubt that once you've exceeded your minimum caloric requirements (and are no longer acting catabolic) that the composition of those excess calories can impact how your body uses them? No way. However, if you want to lose weight then eat fewer calories than what you need...period. It's simple thermodynamics that has been around for 150 years or more. Does the requirement (over the BMR) vary from person to person? Sure! At the end of the day, though, it's all about fuel...and fuel is (precisely) measured in KCal....period. You can't turn a caloric deficit into fat...it's akin to saying that by driving at 55 MPH instead of 65 MPH you can somehow magically "add" fuel to your tank...won't ever happen.

If you want to lose weight you need to expend more calories than you consume. Types of food and the GI index comes into play when calories consumed are more than is being expended. Macronutrient intake ratios will affect the amount of fat stored - for example, an individual consuming 1500 calories per day derived from mostly fat and carbohydrates will gain more body-fat than they were to consume 1500 calories per day derived from mostly protein and carbohydrates. Quartet 03:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Explain how this is possible. First, explain how (nearly anyone) eating 1500 KCal per day would be sufficient for weight GAIN. This isn't far from the BMR requirements. Second, by this definition (there are "different" calories), explain how the body is able to get more heat out of certain fuels (foods - like fats and carbohydrates) than is thermodynamically contained within these foods. There may be more KCal per unit mass in fats or carbohydrates (therefore, the consumption of equal mass of different types of food may yield different KCal consumed), but energy is energy is energy...period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.32.49 (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I said "gain more body-fat" - not "gain more weight". A person can gain bodyfat but not gain scale weight - it's called body composition. Secondly it has well documented that different foods from the same macronutrient category can yield different energy compositions, despite the fact that macronutrients are generally thought to yield a certain amount of kcals per gram. A few studies that test the thermogenic responses to isoenergetic meals (meals having similar caloric compositions) agree that protein is the most thermogenic macronutrient (Europ J Clin Nutr 52: 482-488, Clin Sci 65: 307- 312, J Nutr 113: 2289-2294 + others). --Quartet 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, OK...so let's look at the "weight neutral" (no change in total weight) / "increased body fat condition" for just a moment. If weight doesn't increase, then the only way to "gain more body-fat" is for a two-step process to occur: 1 - Muscle mass needs to get consumed, 2 - Fat needs to be synthesized. By this reckoning, a person eating the "wrong diet" could go from 50 pounds of body-fat and 150 pounds of "other tissues" (including muscle) to 70 pounds of bodyfat and 130 pounds of other tissues. The total weight remains unchanged, yet the compositon changes. With a thermodynamically neutral diet (exact calories in = exact calories needed), the body would literally need to become catabloic to -make- fat under this scenario (because there is no incoming energy to use to make fat tissue with). Again, nonsense...what I believe you have been "fed" (no pun intended) is the premise that in a negative calorie state (calories in < calories needed), the body will catabolize muscle in preference of fat in the absence of sufficient protien intake. This is true. Let's be clear, though...the -mass- of body fat will never increase in a calorie neutral or negative calorie state...it will simply decrease at a slower rate than that of muscle mass (without the proper carbohydrate / protien, fat mix). Further, when calories exceed the body's requirements, the choice of foods can alter the rate at which fat vs muscle mass increases. What you are talking about is "body fat %"...and it has nothing to do with total weight. Eat (roughly) 4000 calories less than your body needs on a pure carbohydrate diet, and your weight will go down by a pound. Eat 4000 calories less than your body needs on a pure protien diet, and your weight will go down by a pound. Eat 4000 calories less than your body needs on a pure fat diet, and your weight will go down by a pound. Same thing going the other way....period. Now...you wanna spare muscle thereby more slowly reducing BMR thereby more slowly reducing the effect that a "fixed calorie" diet will have on weight loss over time - OK, protein will help that. Know what will help it infinitely more? A tiny bit of weight training. Working muscles and encouraging new muscle growth makes the contribution of diet consumptoin trivial when looking at body fat % (body composition) even in a negative calorie state. Here's the final point: This section was called "the calorie myth"...and there is no myth about the direct linear relationship between calories and weight...period. It's the calorie "law".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.32.49 (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2007

Sorry but your post demonstrates a lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Please consider many factors are at play, including hormonal responses to certain macro nutrients, the fact that through respiration you can take in mass which wasn't eaten in the form of oxygen which is available for metabolic processes, and the fact that kilocal seen by burning nutrients in a lab is available to your body as energy. Each macro nutrient has vastly different properties and requires entirely different metabolic pathways (and thus the amount of energy required to extract a calorie differs for each). I suggest you start your research here. --WayneMokane (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A body builder who cease exercise may loose muscle mass and gain fat without alternation of body mass. jmak (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

History of dieting

Where is the information on the history of dieting? The trends and fashions and the reasons they changed? It is hard to understand or to put in context the various popular diets of today without knowing the history. Is dieting a recent phenomenon? Why? Didn't people in the past get fat too? What advances have been made, if any? This article looks like a mess. Lambanog (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Diet diary

Perhaps the diet diary section can be augmented to include the analysis linked to below.

The diet diary section implies a study proves keeping a diary strongly aids in achieving weight loss. This page (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/07July/Pages/Fooddiaryhelpsweightloss.aspx) suggests the link may not be as strong as is supposed. Indeed towards the end of the NHS article, concerning the study it is assessing, it states:

What does the NHS Knowledge Service make of this study?

The initial phase of the carefully designed Weight Loss Maintenance Trial was well conducted. However, its results have been misinterpreted by some news reports.

• This was not a randomised trial and was only the initial observational “screening’” phase to allow entry of participants into a randomised controlled trial aimed at investigating and comparing longer-term strategies for maintaining weight loss.

• The food diary was not an isolated intervention but was combined with several dietary and activity targets as part of a structured behavioural programme, including regular follow-up and supervision by trained professionals.

• The details of the self-reported measures of food diaries kept, activity taken and food consumed cannot be reported, as they are not described in detail in this research. However, it is likely that there will be some reporting bias in the results.

• The study period was relatively short and whether weight would be regained once the food diary and other interventions were stopped has not been reported in this publication.

• The participants in this study also had to fulfil very specific entry criteria and cannot be assumed to be representative of the general population. The study also included a high proportion of African Americans. Results may not be representative of other groups with a different ethnic makeup.

Although a food diary may be beneficial as part of a wider intervention aimed at weight loss, no quantification of the amount of weight that may be lost from keeping a food diary alone can be accurately concluded from this study, as it has not been investigated as an isolated intervention.

109.149.202.15 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This request is too general for an edit request. If you suggest a specific wording I'll check it and make the edit to the article. --Six words (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

failure rate

I think it would be interesting to include the overall failure rate of dieting and furthermore the failure rate of different diets. I keep coming across the figures of 95 % failure rate over a 5 years period in forum discussions, but I can't find where theses figures come from. --Braveheidi (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fasting is not always dangerous

There's good research finding benefit from short term fasting see autophagy. No more than 48 hours, and 24 is probably enough.32cllou (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Crash Diet

The article crash diet redirects to dieting but I couldn't really find in this article what crash dieting is about. Moreover, the present article has crash diet in the "See also" section, i.e., a reference to itself. Can somebody write a short paragraph of crash dieting, please? Cristiklein (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

/* Air Diet */ relocate completely unref'd "air diet" section to talk page

Air Diet

Zero calorie diet, usually supplemented by vitamin and mineral additives. 24 deep breaths, or 'gulps' of air, are taken daily, replacing 99% of basic sustenance. Practitioners cite pseudo-scientific theories of 'energy' being absorbed from the air, with each breath. Health officials refer to limited scientific basis for positive outcomes, sometimes used as an extension to fasting. Very often involves consumption of vegetables proclaimed as 'zero calorie' but in fact have low calorific properties. Reoccurring popularity in online media and sporadic practice in Eastern Europe.

This section was removed from the article, as it has no sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and content must be referenced to a WP:Reliable source. This policy applies to all articles, but it is especially important for health and medicine-related topics such as this one.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheat Meals While on a Diet

Effects of Cheat Meals While Dieting: There have been many research studies conducted on the best ways to lose weight, many of those studies include having one meal of choice a week, in other words a cheat meal. This is because while you are dieting, your many of your hormone levels begin to decrease along with your energy and metabolism. Including that cheat meal into your diet will help to boost metabolism and basically act as fuel to help you burn fat faster. Energy levels will also rise and you will feel better and happier in the days after the cheat meal. Hormones such as leptin, ghrelin, and thyroid hormones will all be affected positively allowing your body to go back to normal levels for the time being. All in all, cheat meals are very beneficial to people that are in a caloric deficit and plays a crucial role in mental strength in order to keep pushing for optimal weight loss goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brady188 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)